Is sudden enlightenment really sudden? Is gradual enlightenment really gradual? The post in the karate forum about "one punch, one kill" brought up a point of contemplation for me. The two philosophies on this subject are parallel to the two schools of Zen thought. Some say we train for a one-hit kill, that is technique which is like a lightning bolt that achieves victory in an instant. Others don't believe that is possible, they see their techniques more like a flowing river which gradually wears away the opposition by constantly applying pressure. The schools of Zen are the same. One says that enlightenment comes like a lightning bolt, with a single word or action or thought everything is blown away. The other says constant effort is required to wear away attachments and defilements little by little, revealing the pure state.

But really, in martial arts, a single hit is never really a single hit. A punch that kills is the product of the thousands or millions of punches that have been thrown before it. Can the sudden school be called sudden, when the suddenness is the product of time and effort? Can the gradual school be called gradual when a single experience can wipe away lifetimes of karmic attachments?

Maybe the point is that time is an illusion. Immediate and gradual, a single event or all the events in past, present, and future...they come down to the same place, which is the only place where enlightenment can occur.

What's the difference between hitting one enemy many times and hitting many enemies once? Who are these enemies we're fighting? What are all these defilements we're supposed to wipe away?

Personally, I've heard different views on this...and I think it comes down to personal experience and lack of definition (of 'enlightenment').

It is gradual, it is sudden, it is both and it is nothing to pursue (as it is inherent). Suzuki said 'no enlighened people, just enlightened acts'. Does this mean that enlightenment is something beyond normal people...a complete change only attainable by Buddha/saints?

Tend to agree. It is a term mired in a historic/social and religious/philosophical context. Puts a secular humanist in a bind...to aspire or not to aspire?

Quote:maybe 'seeking' enlightenment is old-school...maybe people in the future could live moraly sound, without the need of imaginary constructs? a built-in moral compass would be a nice thing to evolve.

A serendipitous e-mail from a friend this morning:

"To start from the self and try to understand all things is delusion. To let the self be awakened by all things is enlightenment. "-- Dogen

A “cabbagehead” was not something I considered you at all. On the other hand, it seems that many folk seek “nothingness” as a way to enlightenment which excludes the conscious direction of the self and thereby lifts this sense of being (or lack thereof) to an aspiration.

To be nothing, is not something (pun intended) I would generally accept. I can see my lot in life, but despite its lack of mattering on a cosmic scale, I still live and love and see life as an adventure for MOI to study and “live” in. It is from “my” perspective that I have to start and then can glance surreptitiously at others-- and generally either sympathize or empathize with them…and in some cases, plain dislike. But to whatever end this little travel of “me” goes, it starts at a point of origin which can only be looked as individual.

To deconstruct further seems to be an exercise in futility to see if we are all shorn from some larger understanding, small beacons of consciousness that are unaware of our “real” interconnected form. Because in the end, it may matter little.

Either things are, or they aren’t---and sometimes those things that are not are considered to exist simply because there is no way to disprove them since we believe, not because you can disinterestedly discern them.

Aren't there times when the loss of the perception of 'me' is desirable?

Quote:To be nothing, is not something (pun intended) I would generally accept... But to whatever end this little travel of “me” goes, it starts at a point of origin which can only be looked as individual.

Well, I think there might be a slight twist to the term of "perception."

When in a moment of awe, looking at the sunset for instance; or when doing a martial art movement that is instinctive and which seems to come from an automatic reaction to stimulii; or when watching a good movie or reading a good book and losing the "self" in the activity at hand--these are all good.

But, it is in that ability of concetration that the brain, and thus the individual self, can produce this sensation. This is hyper-concentration, self-hypnosis, whatever you want to name it. But I don't distinguish this from the individual, nor do I overlay this sense of "lacking self" as anything outside the individual or connected with a greater cosmological awareness.

It is simply me (or you) in the moment and has no other outstanding quality. And can be appreciated just as it is, without piquing any other awareness of that fact.

I guess it would be very hard to define religion or spirituality. But if you take spirituality to mean something exisiting outside the self or having an undefined existence beyong what we can measure in scientific terms, then I think we are at an impasse again.

Just as in that little philosophical mind game, where the tree falls over in an empty forest---when I am gone, it will not matter (sound or not), since I will take my awareness with me, despite accepting or trying to decline death's invitation.

Quote:I'm just trying to 'think' my way to integrating an archaic concept into a more modern context. Something more 'palatable' to the Rational Man.

Heaping illusions upon illusions. The "Rational Man" cannot be satiated. The rational, discriminating mind does not know that it isn't the one and only "true god". It is a part of the whole, but you cannot tell it that. While you are in its house, you obey it as though it were your father, without question. When you get older, you start to move away from it. After much experience, you realize it is just an old man grasping at anything that will support it. All children will realize someday that their father is not "god", and see the bigger world, but there's no forcing the issue. Every moment, everything is where it Is. Time is an illusion.

I wouldn't say time, enlightenment, rationalization, logic, religion, etc are illusions...they are just tools. if in each incremental phase of using these tools brings a sentient closer to realization, then they ultimately no longer need the tools to 'see'.

I've met people that were clearly enlightened, I mean just shining like lights, and yet had no clue. Perhaps seeing their 'Buddha nature'? I'm of the camp that there is a pre-process that goes on before any epiphanies occur...that people are unaware of the minute changes that lead up to major worldview changes. Inherently enlightened...but unaware...unawake. So, when an epiphany occurs, when the 'bottom of the bucket' gives way...that this becomes clear to the individual.

Up till then, the illusions/tools are part of the world we perceive. Using these tools, we build our internal world...and lose sight of the horizon.

But WuXing...even that observation is useful. (Death and destruction are the most obvious objects for contemplation.) Some will see the sense in that statement before they are sitting in a totally destroyed world. Others...well...another lifetime.

If truth, even partial truth where the rational mind seeks to understand the measurable reality at hand, is reflective of a larger, grander truth---it’s still doesn’t placate the “truth” one experiences in the now.

A poor Bangladeshi child that hasn’t eaten in a day is concerned with the reality of filling his belly despite all the efforts of all the philosophers in all the caves of all the mountains of the world to weave an understanding of why the “real” path may explain his condition.

So no, sometimes a tree exists because it exists, or because it grants shade, or gives beauty, or is enjoyed for its own sake. But sometimes a cow is many, many steaks and leather sandals.

"We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts we make the world.Speak or act with an impure mindAnd trouble will follow youAs the wheel follows the ox that draws the cart.

We are what we think.All that we are arises with our thoughts.With our thoughts we make the world.Speak or act with a pure mindAnd happiness will follow youAs your shadow, unshakable.How can a troubled mindUnderstand the way?

we use and rely on the human construct of logic everyday, it's built-in and subconscience - we have evolved (or were gifted, if people prefer) a hard-wiring for it....to deny that we do so, is taking one step away from seeing things for what they are.

cutting down trees were mentioned...not allowing yourself to see the emotion tied in with thoughts of that subject, blinds a person to see the full picture, past and present. Often, we envision an 'ideal' and compare it to our emotional view, and come up with an opinion.

If no tree cutting ever took place, there would be no farming or settlement...both of which are notions we take for granted when we eat vegetables grown on those farms.

The amount of tree forests cleared for farmland for the vegetables we eat far exceed whats been taken from the rainforests...yet we are only concerned with the changes we perceive during our lifetime....we deny the past...we accept vegetable production but are against producing lumber. emotion based perception also denies us of seeing the fact that more tree forests are planted now than in the past - also advances in technology allowing the most efficient use of wood harvesting, etc.

denial works both ways. someone who is FOR wood harvesting could be blind to replenishing sufficiently, thereby eventually using up the entire resource. entire civilizations have collapsed from such lack of foresight - particularly islanders. Easter Island's ancient inhabitors suffered that fate. Their emotional bias blinded them to see what they were doing.

what all this means, is an example (or lesson) in the advancement of awareness. gradual and widespread 'enlightenment'.

The biggest threat we have faced in the past and into the future is ourselves. our level of awareness is key, not only as individuals, but as a species.

I think 'enlightenment' can not only be looked at from an individual's inward growth pov, but also a gradual and very long-term, hard-rewiring of humans. evolve a 'third-eye' so to speak.

A man approached Buddha and wanted to have all his philosophical questions answered before he would practice.

In response, the Buddha said, 'It is as if a man had been wounded by a poisoned arrow and when attended to by a physician were to say, "I will not allow you to remove this arrow until I have learned the caste, the age, the occupation, the birthplace, and the motivation of the person who wounded me." That man would die before having learned all this. In exactly the same way, anyone who would say, "I will not follow a teaching until all the truths of the world have been explained" - that person would die before knowing.'

All in the mind is perhaps correct. However, we have to consider our everyday existence and wend our way through this landscape. This means our compass and guide is logic. One can imagine eating dirt and thinking it is an apple pie, but “less filling” comes to mind.

If everything is illusory, then it still would not matter. We are here and the rock that hits you in the head is real enough. I think the rational mind and logic is what must be looked at as the primary tool to shine a light into the darkness of misunderstanding, otherwise we have witchcraft and magic and the Wiccans to contend with, as well as a spiritual overlay on present reality that comes from various religions and philosophies.

Can they all be right? Sure, if the answer is that it comes from the mind. However, existence can only be measured in the here and now, and regardless of what one may think or imbue this existence with, it still comes down to an ability to measure and “see” it. With that “seeing” comes the responsibility that others can do the same and come up with the same result. Look at how many people believe in ghosts or visiting aliens without “hard” documented proof and you get my point. People will see and believe whatever they want, but it will affect them and not others. Unless, of course, they act on internal visions that direct their actions outward.

So, if a person says a color is green and another says it is red? Who is correct? One can get a consensus, but perhaps this is insufficient. Or one can go to a color yard stick and assign temperature coefficients to different spectral ranges and voila you get a verifiable, repeatable test of what color is actually being presented.

Logic is a tool, but that’s why we have air conditioning, medicine, and longer better lives…instead of living in cave and wondering where our next meal is coming from and being able to think about more philosophical things….since modern convenience now allows this.

Perhaps only the enlightened have the ability to debate this. Otherwise, it is just words...debate, and logic and unenlightened.

Quote:Is sudden enlightenment really sudden? Is gradual enlightenment really gradual? The post in the karate forum about "one punch, one kill" brought up a point of contemplation for me. The two philosophies on this subject are parallel to the two schools of Zen thought. Some say we train for a one-hit kill, that is technique which is like a lightning bolt that achieves victory in an instant. Others don't believe that is possible, they see their techniques more like a flowing river which gradually wears away the opposition by constantly applying pressure. The schools of Zen are the same. One says that enlightenment comes like a lightning bolt, with a single word or action or thought everything is blown away. The other says constant effort is required to wear away attachments and defilements little by little, revealing the pure state.

But really, in martial arts, a single hit is never really a single hit. A punch that kills is the product of the thousands or millions of punches that have been thrown before it. Can the sudden school be called sudden, when the suddenness is the product of time and effort? Can the gradual school be called gradual when a single experience can wipe away lifetimes of karmic attachments?

Maybe the point is that time is an illusion. Immediate and gradual, a single event or all the events in past, present, and future...they come down to the same place, which is the only place where enlightenment can occur.

What's the difference between hitting one enemy many times and hitting many enemies once? Who are these enemies we're fighting? What are all these defilements we're supposed to wipe away?

Scientific studies are being done on it in various fields. Unfortunately, only about 1% of the population seems to experience absorbed, non-referential states spontaneously...and zen masters report that not all students will 'achieve' samadhi. So, the problem starts with a lack of subjects. Also, there is no agreement on whether or not there are 'levels' of realization (beyond the disagreement of gradual vs. spontaneous).

Perhaps, like becoming 'masters' in a the martial arts, enlightenment isn't possible for everyone? (WuXing...what is the Buddha's view on this?)

Everyone is already enlightened. Time is an illusion. Within the illusion, everyone will realize it eventually. Everyone is everyOne. In this lifetime or another, past present or future...the process of enlightenment is just as illusory as the defilements which keep us in the dark.

The last passage in the last chapter of the Lankavatara Sutra, which is the sutra that Bodhidharma favored and passed on to the subsequent patriarchs of Ch'an, says

Quote:But no beings are left outside by the will of the Tathágatas; some day each and every one will be influenced by the wisdom and love of the Tathágatas of Transformation to lay up a stock of merit and ascend the stages. But, if they only realized it, they are already in the Tathágata’s Nirvana for, in Noble Wisdom, all things are in Nirvana from the beginning.

Quote:Everyone is already enlightened. Time is an illusion. Within the illusion, everyone will realize it eventually. Everyone is everyOne. In this lifetime or another, past present or future...the process of enlightenment is just as illusory as the defilements which keep us in the dark.

The last passage in the last chapter of the Lankavatara Sutra, which is the sutra that Bodhidharma favored and passed on to the subsequent patriarchs of Ch'an, says

Quote:But no beings are left outside by the will of the Tathágatas; some day each and every one will be influenced by the wisdom and love of the Tathágatas of Transformation to lay up a stock of merit and ascend the stages. But, if they only realized it, they are already in the Tathágata’s Nirvana for, in Noble Wisdom, all things are in Nirvana from the beginning.

And how many people have experienced love by reading the word in the dictionary, or listening to other's explain their experiences to them? Wanting, learning about it, is not the same as experiencing it. All the scientific studies of hormones, the brain and the heart have yet to find the repository of the 'soul' or give the experience of 'love'. Yet...even without scientific 'proof' of love, with only discussions of hormones, no one denies that love exists once they experience it.

Can anyone hope to go through life with a continual, rolling expansion of momentary epiphanies from day to day? And, was is wrong about casually caressing a memory of some importance, as long as it is not used as measuring the zenith for the whole of one's life?

*hint* About 12 people responded to the zen poll, but very few folks respond. Don't think it will be missed.

As for continual, rolling epiphanies...no thanks! How would I ever manage to drive my car to work? Seriously, there is that last section of the zen ox herding koans...where one returns to the marketplace. Up the mountain, down the mountain, transitioning....